Oh we know how they're formed, we've just never actually seen it happen in real time. Part of the problem is, and I believe Billy Bob Thornton said it best in "Armageddon" when he said, "it's a big sky". Typically we only look at small patches of the sky at any one point. There's just too much out there so we focus on what looks interesting. Also there's the time frame involved. These things can take hundreds of thousands if not millions of years to form depending of course on the size of the gas clouds. If we've been looking at the skies for only a couple thousand years, who's to say that we'd see a star forming in that amount of time?

We're limited in what we can see and what is observable to us. If a new star was born today, but it was over 100 light years away we wouldn't know about it for 100 years assuming we happened to be looking in it's general vicinity. Truth is, we probably will never see a star being born in our lifetime.

The current star formation theory ignores basic laws of physics. If we were to ASSUME that the universe is roughly 4.5 to 5 billion years old, with our current estimate of the amount of stars, stars should be forming by the 100's every month. You honestly think that if this were the case we wouldn't spot one?

The current star formation theory ignores basic laws of physics. If we were to ASSUME that the universe is roughly 4.5 to 5 billion years old, with our current estimate of the amount of stars, stars should be forming by the 100's every month. You honestly think that if this were the case we wouldn't spot one?

Which laws of physics are they breaking? Gas cloud + time + gravity = star formation. It's a lot more complex than that, but that is the basis of star formation.

I will admit to not being the best student when it comes to physics, but I do know my astronomy.

Which laws of physics are they breaking? Gas cloud + time + gravity = star formation. It's a lot more complex than that, but that is the basis of star formation.

I will admit to not being the best student when it comes to physics, but I do know my astronomy.

Well as you claim stars supposedly formed by a gas cloud, time, and gravity. The issue with this is, for that theory to be plausible a massive amount of energy, angular momentum, and residual magnetism must be removed from each cloud. This is something that is not observed, nor has even been observed. To sum it up, astronomers have been unable to explain experimentally how all this could happen.

Secondly the most luminous stars in our galaxy (o-stars) are burning fuel hundreds of thousands times faster than our sun. The problem is that, since they burn fuel so fast they must be relatively young on the evolutionary timescale (otherwise they would be burned out by now). If star formation theory is correct and these stars are young, then we should still see measurable characteristics such as, high rotation, and large magnetic fields. Since these stars do not show these characteristics, it shows a flaw in the current star formation theory.

Another issue with the current star formation theory is that we find stars where astronomers agree that they couldn't have possibly evolved. Such as the ones near the center of our galaxy. These short lived stars orbit near a massive black hole, and that black hole's gravity would have pulled dust into it, not allowing the formation of that star. So how did it evolve in such an environment totally opposite of what is required for a star to form (according to current theory)?

Stars also are found in globular clusters, this is the situation that violates basic laws of physics. If stars really do form via gravity, dust and time. Then when the first star ignites, it creates a solar wind and radiation. This process would blow the remaining dust in the area away from the newly formed star. And it would be impossible for another star to form in that location. But yet we have observed over 200 globular clusters and some of these clusters contain millions of stars packed in very small spaces. This violates laws of physics and basically debunks current star formation theory.

As Dr. Walt Brown Wrote:

"A similar problem exists for stars that are more than twenty times more massive than our Sun. After a star grew to 20 solar masses, it would exert so much radiation pressure and emit so much stellar wind that additional mass could not be pulled in to allow it to grow.

Many stars are heavier than a hundred suns. Black holes are millions to billions of times more massive than the Sun. Poor logic is involved in arguing for stellar evolution, which is assumed in estimating the ages of stars. These ages are then used to establish a framework for stellar evolution. That is circular reasoning."

You also ignored my question on the likelyhood of observing a star form, if we assume natrualistic origins and vast time. I would like an answer

I didn't respond because there was nothing to respond to. You made a claim that there would be hundreds of stars being born every month and I wouldn't be surprised if there were. The better question would be, "if they are being born then why can't we see them"?

Perhaps they're too far away to be seen with the naked eye. Or maybe we're not just looking in the right place. Or maybe the light from these stars is so faint that it's getting lost in all the background noise of the universe. There's no real answer to this, or maybe you're not looking for an answer so much as trying to show how clever you are. I'm not a scientist and I don't claim to be one. I'm a chef and as a hobby I like to look at the stars. I've read some books on astronomy but I've never bothered to get too deeply involved in the hows and whys. Trying to find that out takes some of the wonder out of it.

Now in reference to your previous post. Okay, that's interesting but I've never heard of any of this before although I can honestly say I've never studied it in any great deal. I'd be curious as to where you got your information and if I have the time I'll take a look if you can provide the links. From what I've read on the subject, it's gas clouds + gravity + time. We're dealing with gas clouds that contain over 100,000 stellar masses and can be several light years large but gas clouds none the less. I can understand where you're coming from especially if you're a young earth creationist as typically this deals with timescales on the order of billions of years compared to somewhere under 10,000. When people in authority say something that messes with what you believe it can be a little disconcerting.

When I look into the skies, I'm looking directly at history all at once. I'm seeing the light that started it's journey the day I was born. I'm seeing the light that started it's journey when the last gun fired in WWII. I'm seeing the light that started it's journey when Rome fell, when the atom was split, when Michaelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel, when Jesus gave his sermon on the mount and beyond that. This ties me to the cosmos and binds me with history. Beyond that, it actually matters little to me. Maybe it's just a Buddhist thing or maybe it's just me.

I didn't respond because there was nothing to respond to. You made a claim that there would be hundreds of stars being born every month and I wouldn't be surprised if there were. The better question would be, "if they are being born then why can't we see them"?

Perhaps they're too far away to be seen with the naked eye. Or maybe we're not just looking in the right place. Or maybe the light from these stars is so faint that it's getting lost in all the background noise of the universe. There's no real answer to this, or maybe you're not looking for an answer so much as trying to show how clever you are. I'm not a scientist and I don't claim to be one. I'm a chef and as a hobby I like to look at the stars. I've read some books on astronomy but I've never bothered to get too deeply involved in the hows and whys. Trying to find that out takes some of the wonder out of it.

Now in reference to your previous post. Okay, that's interesting but I've never heard of any of this before although I can honestly say I've never studied it in any great deal. I'd be curious as to where you got your information and if I have the time I'll take a look if you can provide the links. From what I've read on the subject, it's gas clouds + gravity + time. We're dealing with gas clouds that contain over 100,000 stellar masses and can be several light years large but gas clouds none the less. I can understand where you're coming from especially if you're a young earth creationist as typically this deals with timescales on the order of billions of years compared to somewhere under 10,000. When people in authority say something that messes with what you believe it can be a little disconcerting.

When I look into the skies, I'm looking directly at history all at once. I'm seeing the light that started it's journey the day I was born. I'm seeing the light that started it's journey when the last gun fired in WWII. I'm seeing the light that started it's journey when Rome fell, when the atom was split, when Michaelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel, when Jesus gave his sermon on the mount and beyond that. This ties me to the cosmos and binds me with history. Beyond that, it actually matters little to me. Maybe it's just a Buddhist thing or maybe it's just me.

I see, so your position is based on (i.e. in your own words) 'perhaps' this happened. Or 'maybe' that...(twice in the same paragraph). And you finished with 'Maybe'...it's just a Buddhist thing or 'maybe it's just me.'

Oh, we agree. Buddhism is just a 'maybe' thing to begin with.

The difference between your position and ours: direct observation vs guesswork. Do you think 'maybe' that is possible?

Gravity is the weakest force in the known universe.
Therefore, gravity can't clump matter effectively until all momentums are exhausted.

The real proof of a problem with the age of the universe is seen in what the Hubble telescope has revealed. The Hubble telescope allowed us to look seven times further than before and revealed a expanse of evenly spread galaxies and stars and various formations.. And, now, not so many years ago, the Hubble was upgraded to look seven times further than it could before and has revealed an identical presentation of evenly spread stars and galaxies and various formations..
The universe was estimated to be 14 billion light years across when I was a boy.
And. seven times further means it is more likely to be 100 billion light years across.
And, now, seven times further means it is more likely to be 700 billion light years across.

And, what is it the atheists spout about?
They say, Hey! it takes light years to get here from the source of light, so the universe must be at least older than that.
But, it doesn't take a genius to realize that if I am looking back seven times further in time, that what I see shouldn't look the same as what existed seven times earlier.
There should be a thinning out.
There should be a vast array of embers and deaths of stars.
There should be zones of rebirth.

Instead it looks the same as what is near to us.

If you google the Hubble you can verify for yourself the utter identicality of the vision presented at unbelievably vast distances.

Gravity is the weakest force in the known universe.Therefore, gravity can't clump matter effectively until all momentums are exhausted.

The real proof of a problem with the age of the universe is seen in what the Hubble telescope has revealed. The Hubble telescope allowed us to look seven times further than before and revealed a expanse of evenly spread galaxies and stars and various formations.. And, now, not so many years ago, the Hubble was upgraded to look seven times further than it could before and has revealed an identical presentation of evenly spread stars and galaxies and various formations..The universe was estimated to be 14 billion light years across when I was a boy.And. seven times further means it is more likely to be 100 billion light years across.And, now, seven times further means it is more likely to be 700 billion light years across.

And, what is it the atheists spout about?They say, Hey! it takes light years to get here from the source of light, so the universe must be at least older than that.But, it doesn't take a genius to realize that if I am looking back seven times further in time, that what I see shouldn't look the same as what existed seven times earlier.There should be a thinning out.There should be a vast array of embers and deaths of stars.There should be zones of rebirth.

Instead it looks the same as what is near to us.

If you google the Hubble you can verify for yourself the utter identicality of the vision presented at unbelievably vast distances.

I didn't respond because there was nothing to respond to. You made a claim that there would be hundreds of stars being born every month and I wouldn't be surprised if there were. The better question would be, "if they are being born then why can't we see them"?

No that wouldn't be the better question because it ignores the very point of the first question I asked. IF stars are forming natrually the probability of *not* spotting one at the current estimate of birth rate is relatively low. Especially with current space viewing technology. Minus the obvious physics impossibility of star formation, the fact that there are so many and we haven't seen one form is great evidence against that theory. I'm not trying to be "clever" as you said, but rather I am working with empirical science to prove my position. Something your latest post lacked entirely.

I gave you scientific, and observable evidence to support my position, you have given "maybe's" "what if's" and "pure speculation" without any scientific basis as evidence. Now maybe you are not trying to prove your position and that would be fine. But if you are going to discuss on a forum, I suggest you have a little more than "maybe" in your pocket. My sources for star formation have been the readings I have done throughout my studies. Check out some astronomy websites on how stars "supposedly" form. That will get you started in the process of how it's "supposed" to happen. Then you can start looking in the laws of physics to show how the current theory breaks those laws. Most of what I posted I learned from Dr. Walt Brown's book "In the beginning" Which can be found at creationscience.com.

I specialize in astronomy so I could probably give a good answer to this.

The beginning of solar systems and such start out in what is called a solar nebula which is basically a bunch of gas and other materials together that eventually make planets and stars. Think of a nebula as a bunch of gas and other debris in a very compact area or in an area that isn't very compact. There's a stable amount of gravity to where nothing goes on, but gravity is sometimes unpredictable and for whatever reasons I don't know the gravity eventually goes crazy and the gases start forming together. The most dense elements like Hydrogen form at the center which makes stars, and the other rock and debris start to collide together forming "planetesimals" which are baby planets. Eventually this all stops and this is how we get these things.

I haven't studied solar nebula's for a while now, so if I get something wrong then correct me.